About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for NC26-78, issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing through the Department of Environmental Quality. The procurement seeks a single contract award for laboratory analysis of trace metals in tissue samples collected from the hypersaline waters of Great Salt Lake. The contract term is five years, with vendors required to guarantee pricing for the first 12 months of the contract period.
The evaluation scoresheet establishes a 1,000-point scoring system comprising 70 percent technical evaluation (700 points) and 30 percent cost evaluation (300 points). Technical scoring is weighted across three primary criteria: Required Services (60 points, 42.9% of technical score), Experience (60 points, 42.9% of technical score), and Project Profiles (20 points, 14.3% of technical score). A mandatory requirement stipulates that the successful applicant must be NELAC certified or equivalent with at least five years of experience in analyzing tissue samples from hypersaline waters of Great Salt Lake. Proposals must achieve a minimum technical score of 490 points (70 percent of the 700-point technical threshold) to be considered responsive. Cost points are calculated using a formula where the lowest-priced proposal receives 100 percent of available cost points, with other proposals receiving proportional points based on their price differential relative to the lowest bid.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-Attachment B Scope of Work GSL Tissue Metals.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Att.-A-Agency-Terms-and-Conditions-GS.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment C - Cost Proposal Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - RFP Agency.pdf | ||
| 6-Attachment D Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Score Sheet
| Laboratory Analysis of Tissue Samples | ||||||||||
| NC26-78 | ||||||||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||||||||
| Score will be assigned as follows: | ||||||||||
| 0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to missing information | ||||||||||
| Firm Name: | 1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information | |||||||||
| 2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner | ||||||||||
| Evaluator: | 3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner | |||||||||
| 4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in some respects exceeds them | ||||||||||
| Date: | 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | |||||||||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||||||||
| 1 | The successful applicant must be a NELAC certified (or equivalent) laboratory with at least 5 years of experience in the analysis of tissue samples from hypersaline waters of Great Salt Lake. | Proposal Data | ||||||||
| 0 | ||||||||||
| Scoreable Technical Criteria | RFP Section | Evaluator Score (0-5) | Criteria Weight | % of Tech Criteria | Points Possible | Points | ||||
| Earned | Minimum Required | |||||||||
| 1 | Required Services | Att. D | 60 | 42.9% | 300.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 2 | Experience | Att. D | 60 | 42.9% | 300.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 3 | Project Profiles | Att. D | 20 | 14.3% | 100.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| 13 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 14 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 15 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 16 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 17 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 18 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 19 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 20 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 21 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 22 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 23 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| 100.0% | 700.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||||
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation | ||||
| 70% | 490.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0 | ||||||
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | ||||
| 30% | 300.0 | 0.0 | ||||||||
| * Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each offerors cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The offeror with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Price is than the Lowest Proposed Price. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). | ||||||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned | |||||||
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70% | 700.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 30% | 300.0 | 0.0 | |||||||
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .